510 réponses à ce sujet

[Amioran]

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

Bioware are the creators of Mass Effect if they wanted to they could rewrite everything in Mass Effect if they so wished. Just look at Star Wars.

Sure they could. That would still be alienating some part of the user base on absolutely arbirtary motives, however, and I really doubt they would ever do a thing as this.

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

Amioran wrote...

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

Bioware are the creators of Mass Effect if they wanted to they could rewrite everything in Mass Effect if they so wished. Just look at Star Wars.

Sure they could. That would still be alienating some part of the user base on absolutely arbirtary motives, however, and I really doubt they would ever do a thing as this.

No they won't the majority of the playerbase thinks the endings stink on ice and so they have to decide. Definitely lose out on the large number of fans that will not buy future Mass Effect and other Bioware merch or maybe lose the small number of players that liked the ending.  And if the ending is better then what does it matter?

Modifié par Harbinger of your Destiny, 01 mai 2012 - 08:16 .

[MrMcDoll]

Amioran wrote...

That would be like admitting that one part of the audience (those that don't like the ending) have an opinion that matters more than those that like it. 

Instead of, say, Admitting that one part of the audience (those that do like the ending) have an opinion that matters more than those that don't like it.

Wow! Your logic is infallable!! 

[Amioran]

MrMcDoll wrote...
Instead of, say, Admitting that one part of the audience (those that do like the ending) have an opinion that matters more than those that don't like it.

Wow! Your logic is infallable!! 

Read others replies above, I already replied to this in detail.

I think I'm gonna edit the post because it seems to me you people have a logic so twisted that you cannot understand the difference on the two things.

Modifié par Amioran, 01 mai 2012 - 08:13 .

[MrMcDoll]

I think you should. Because there is nothing wrong with my logic in seeing the hypocrisy of the statement as it stands. If you clarified the OP then it wouldn't be a problem.
I can't stand all of the repeated 'Sherlock Holmes + Fallout3' arguments and the way they are flip-flopped back and forth as arguments for AND against changing the endings, so I skimmed through a lot of the replies.

[Metalrocks]

interesting read but i still think they should not give us an ending that has so many plot holes for the final part of the franchise. especially when they said we will not have a A,B,C ending and that our desicins matter and in the end we get the total opposite of it.

i still cant bring my self to play it again.

[MrMcDoll]

Amioran wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
There are youtube videos detailing just why the ending is bad from an objective point of view using the tools of literature. Nothing subjective there.

Yes, YouTube videos are good proof of something, how not. The majority of YouTube users are experts of literature, sure. Are you kidding me?

Your "objectivity" just demonstrate that you have no idea of what you are talking about. All those videos are complete crap, those people know absolutely anything about the theme (that every either mediocre student of literature know almost perfectly, so here there goes your "experts of literature"), and yet they want to judge the narrative.
 
It doesn't matter if you like/don't like what you have, without the context you cannot judge objectively a narrative, there's no way.

Your "videos" have the same value as the judgment of an ape on a work of Leonardo (and not because I consider ME on par of works of Leonardo, it is just an example).

Actually - nevermind. You are on a high horse of "artistic integrity"
I could post up a youtube video outlining why ME3's ending was "objectively" bad in terms of literary ploys.
I could also send you a copy of my Degree in Arts, majoring in English and Literature.
Then would I be qualified to hold those opinions in your view? Would my opinions be considered more "objectively" justified? I very much doubt it.
You are defending your arguments based on assumptions and generalisations. When it comes to an "art-form" there ARE no objective facts regarding story and emotion-fostering plot devices etc.

The most you can really argue OBJECTIVELY in defense of the endings is that Bio should NOT change them from a business perspective.
Problem is you can argue OBJECTIVELY the latter.
All other arguments (Artistic merit, lore, themes, in-universe logic etc) will always be considered as SUBJECTIVE by any detractors of whatever viewpoint is shared.

There's no point in this argument - what (massive) flaws in the ending there are have been expressed, Bioware and EA have decided on their "Final Solution" and we have to take it as it is.

edit: ps, I love the condescending use of "you people." I doubt in the history of mankind has that sort of separationist rhetoric ever been used in a positive light.

Modifié par MrMcDoll, 01 mai 2012 - 08:26 .

[Amioran]

MrMcDoll wrote...
Actually - nevermind. You are on a high horse of "artistic integrity"

No, I'm not. This post has nothing to do with the above. It is just that some users like to talk of off-topic things just to try to have a point and sometimes I have to reply to them.

You can disagree with what I say above or whatever, but this has nothing to do with the original post.

MrMcDoll wrote...
I could post up a youtube video outlining why ME3's ending was "objectively" bad in terms of literary ploys.

Please don't do so. This is not the thread.

Anyway I know all those videos. They talk of the narrative without knowing the context, a pure idiocy.

MrMcDoll wrote...
I could also send you a copy of my Degree in Arts, majoring in English and Literature.

So you are a majored in English and Literature and you don't know the "order vs. chaos" theme and all its dynamics. Good to know.

I'm sure it did you a lot of good studying Elliot, Shelley or Swinburne (to not to talk about Joyce).

MrMcDoll wrote...
Then would I be qualified to hold those opinions in your view? Would my opinions be considered more "objectively" justified? I very much doubt it.

Yes you would, because at last you would have (in theory) a background to understand the theme behind the narrative.

Naturally in practice the thing could be different, but at last in theory you should have a knowledge of the things you are trying to judge.

MrMcDoll wrote...
You are defending your arguments based on assumptions and generalisations. When it comes to an "art-form" there ARE no objective facts regarding story and emotion-fostering plot devices etc.

Art is not only composed by abstract parameters. There are also technical ones to judge. One of that, is in fact, knowing the context of a narrative.

MrMcDoll wrote...
The most you can really argue OBJECTIVELY in defense of the endings is that Bio should NOT change them from a business perspective.

In fact the primary post does this. Also from a purely business perspective all I say makes perfect sense. Bioware cannot know where the "majority" stands, and anyway popular opinion it doesn't mean "better" opinion.

MrMcDoll wrote...
All other arguments (Artistic merit, lore, themes, in-universe logic etc) will always be considered as SUBJECTIVE by any detractors of whatever viewpoint is shared.

Depends on to what extent you judge the narrative. There are some objective parameters you can judge, but if you don't either know the context of the narrative all of them are obviously faulted from beginning, because it is like trying to draw with a pencil that has no head.

MrMcDoll wrote...
There's no point in this argument - what (massive) flaws in the ending there are have been expressed, Bioware and EA have decided on their "Final Solution" and we have to take it as it is.

And it was the only logic decision they could adopt, given what I say in my post.

MrMcDoll wrote...
edit: ps, I love the condescending use of "you people." I doubt in the history of mankind has that sort of separationist rhetoric ever been used in a positive light.

Look at the replies of this post. Do you see a different trend?

Then, yes, I'm usually against the mass.

As for using the same for the benefit of mankind, just two examples: Rimbaud, Wilde.

Modifié par Amioran, 01 mai 2012 - 08:50 .

[MrMcDoll]

Your reply really just came across as assumptive then.
What makes you think that I don't understand anything about the themes of Order vs Chaos? Those themes were not too pervasive throughout the series and I would have thought that they were secondary to the theme of life being life regardless of platform (synthetic vs organic) but even then, that theme was subverted into a kind of deterministic singularity.

Honestly, with replies like "I'm sure it did you a lot of good studying Elliot, Shelley or Swinburne (to not to talk about Joyce)." You only make yourself sound 'holier-than-thou" and arrogant.
My point about qualifications required to comment on subjectivity, were to highlight that you clearly have some desire to place yourself above all others as an authority on the endings and what argument constitutes a good one.
This is highlighted further by your "you people" comment and your justification, as well as stating that the popular opinion isn't always the better one, even though, we are discussing an "art-form" that is also a commodity.
Based on the fact that Mass Effect 3 is a PRODUCT, the popular opinion IS the most important one. Otherwise Mass Effect would have actually stayed closer to it's roots. Otherwise Bioware would be making games like Baldur's Gate, NOT cashing in on the console craze and popular shooting mechanics a la COD and BF3.

I doubt that you will take any of this on board though, you are clearly set in your opinion and refuse to see the hypocrisy of your previous statements etc.

What was that thing I heard about arguing on the internet again?

[CAlNlAC]

@Amioran
I never said my opinion was better than yours our anyone elses. All I said was I think that it would be possible for Bioware to make some changes to the ending -like the idea I proposed- while keeping both those that like the ending and those that don't happy.  

And really man you can chill with the whole condescending tone.

[Amioran]

MrMcDoll wrote...
Your reply really just came across as assumptive then.
What makes you think that I don't understand anything about the themes of Order vs Chaos? Those themes were not too pervasive throughout the series and I would have thought that they were secondary to the theme of life being life regardless of platform (synthetic vs organic) but even then, that theme was subverted into a kind of deterministic singularity.

Listen, I would like to go in detail about all of this and explain specifically why the "order vs. chaos" is the primary thme in the narrative but this is just not the thread, there will be other occasions, I'm sure.

Morover I discussed all of this other times, and I don't like to repeat it now in an off-topic discussion.

MrMcDoll wrote...
Honestly, with replies like "I'm sure it did you a lot of good studying Elliot, Shelley or Swinburne (to not to talk about Joyce)." You only make yourself sound 'holier-than-thou" and arrogant.

No, it's just a fact. Those authors have based the majority of their works on that theme. If you don't know it (and much better than what is required to understand ME fully) then there's no way studying those authors can make you any good. You will simply understand almost nothing (if not just what you want it to be, that it means very little) about what they say.

MrMcDoll wrote...
My point about qualifications required to comment on subjectivity, were to highlight that you clearly have some desire to place yourself above all others as an authority on the endings and what argument constitutes a good one.

I just point out that the "objective" proofs coming from that videos are not "objective" at all because they judge a narrative without context.

There's nothing of "placing yourself above others" on pointing out simple facts.

MrMcDoll wrote...
This is highlighted further by your "you people" comment and your justification, as well as stating that the popular opinion isn't always the better one, even though, we are discussing an "art-form" that is also a commodity.

Apart that "you people" is a matter of saying, you are taking it too literally, an art-form being a commodity or not it has nothing to do with an opinion being "better" or "worser" and the parameters (that don't exist) to estabilish the same.

MrMcDoll wrote...
Based on the fact that Mass Effect 3 is a PRODUCT, the popular opinion IS the most important one. Otherwise Mass Effect would have actually stayed closer to it's roots. Otherwise Bioware would be making games like Baldur's Gate, NOT cashing in on the console craze and popular shooting mechanics a la COD and BF3.

Admitting that what you say is true (and it is not, because popular opinion is not the most important one just because a thing is a product, but let's leave it that that) what's the most popular opinion? Are you sure that it is that the ending sucks?

MrMcDoll wrote...
I doubt that you will take any of this on board though, you are clearly set in your opinion and refuse to see the hypocrisy of your previous statements etc.

If I did I would not have added an edit to my original post.

MrMcDoll wrote...
What was that thing I heard about arguing on the internet again?

It can be, as it can be that you simply don't like when people say a thing you don't like to hear.

You say I do the same, but yet I'm here and debating with you, so, you know, what you say doesn't make much sense given this.

Modifié par Amioran, 01 mai 2012 - 09:14 .

[Icinix]

Well they can't actually change the ending, but they can certainly explain some of it away with some extra DLC.

[Yezdigerd]

Well, the OP's notion that the endings can't be changed because that would mean a confirmation that pro enders view is less important.
Well yes? It's pretty much like those who enjoyed the planet exploration theme, the game developers chose to alienate them, either because they thought it wasn't worth the money or because they thought it didn't fit the athmosphere.

Anyway I find the ending so bad and wrong I can't really take people who claims to like it seriously. I don't even feel an urge to explain why. If you don't experience what is wrong with the picture after playing through the series, arguing about it serves no purpose.

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 01 mai 2012 - 09:16 .

[Snake241079]

They could always find a way to add new endingchoices without replacing the endings that are already available. That would be the best solution for pleasing everyone without compromising their artistic integrity yet give the unsatisfied players what they want.

[Amioran]

Yezdigerd wrote...
Well yes? It's pretty much like those who enjoyed the planet exploration theme, the game developers chose to alienate them, either because they thought it wasn't worth the money or because they thought it didn't fit the athmosphere.

1. Different product. It has a different impact than changing something on an already existent one.

2. The judgment to remove those things could be based on non-arbitrary parameters, differently from this case.

Modifié par Amioran, 01 mai 2012 - 09:30 .

[Pride Demon]

Amioran wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...
following the same reasoning, keeping the ending as is, even if they explain it, is like saying that those that like are more correct that those that don't.

No, because is not a change. The product was this from beginning and it remains intact. Those who don't like the ending can dislike the product, but that's another thing. They don't go against these people because they simply keep the product what it is, because it has always been (from beginning) in this way.

I see... Then the problem is player feedback, if the products shouldn't be changed then companies should stop listening to what their buyer wants, because they prompt changes that other buyers may not like, and their product was like that in the first place... For instance a lot of people actually liked the Mako/ Hammerhead/ mining minigame, we know what happened there...

Also if I don't like something and you don't change it, you are going against my wishes, you can spin it however you want, but that's fact, it's not necessarily a bad fact, but it's fact...

A asks to keep the game as is, you change it, you go against what A wants...
B asks to modify an aspect of the game, you don't change it, you go against what B wants...

Saying A is more entitled to his/her request because the game already was like that is biased reasoning, and you specifically said BioWare shouldn't be biased...

Bottom line, BioWare has all the reasons in the world to do what they want, being the developer, but that doesn't change that whatever they decide to do they are giving precedence to a part of the fanbase, an uncomfortable situation if you ask me, but an inevitable one, trying to please everyone usually ends up making everyone unhappy...

Seriously, I hope this EC DLC will fix everything, all this ending debate is tiring me up... :/

[Amioran]

Pride Demon wrote...
I see... Then the problem is player feedback, if the products shouldn't be changed then companies should stop listening to what their buyer wants, because they prompt changes that other buyers may not like, and their product was like that in the first place... For instance a lot of people actually liked the Mako/ Hammerhead/ mining minigame, we know what happened there...

It's different when you do the same for ANOTHER product.

Do you understand the difference? There are totally different parameters invested.

Pride Demon wrote...
Also if I don't like something and you don't change it, you are going against my wishes, you can spin it however you want, but that's fact, it's not necessarily a bad fact, but it's fact...

In fact, those are your "wishes". For those that like the product it's not a matter of "wishes" at all. You "wish" for it to change, those that like the product don't wish for it to remain the same because it is already as they like it. So, in turn, they wish nothing.

Bioware to change would mean adhering to "wishes" and not minding at all those that are happy with the product as it is and having no "wishes".

Pride Demon wrote...
A asks to keep the game as is, you change it, you go against what A wants...
B asks to modify an aspect of the game, you don't change it, you go against what B wants...

But in the case of A the product shipped is already done that way. If you go for A you don't have to do absolutely nothing, this in turn doesn't shift the thing more than already is. If you go for B you have to change a product it's already as it is just for the wants of them, that it shifts the thing in their favor totally.

It is actually completely on the favor of B, because you do an action that goes against A for no motivation apart the "wishes" of B. If the product was not yet published it would be different, but in this case you have to do an action that goes against only one of the point of views based on arbitrary motives only.

Pride Demon wrote...
Saying A is more entitled to his/her request because the game already was like that is biased reasoning, and you specifically said BioWare shouldn't be biased...

It's not biased because they published a product. People have different opinons on that product, as it is to be expected. Doing nothing doesn't take a part at all, it is just the product you published and people having different opinons on it. Changing it, on the contrary, would mean taking the part of those that don't like the product and only those.

Do you understand the difference?

Modifié par Amioran, 01 mai 2012 - 10:04 .

[DiegoProgMetal]

I really don't understand why offering an ALTERNATIVE (as in optional) ending as a dlc, would hurt the feelings of those who like the endings the way they are. Instead they would keep their beloved endings and would still have the OPTION to experience yet another ending... Using the "dog" analogy, it would be like "Well, some people want to change their dogs, so we are offering other ones. If you want, you can have it. If you love yours, you can keep it. Or even better, YOU CAN HAVE BOTH!!!"? Why is that so hard to understand?
And you talked about people who don't want the "starchild" at all. I'm one of them. But I don't want it in MY game. If someone else want to keep it in theirs, it's not my business. Why deny the option, if the the only supposed problem would be "alienating" people. I don't see how offering options to everyone would alienate someone.

Alternative, option. "You want the original ending? You want the alternative ending? You want both? Here, it's your choice!"

How would this be harmful???

But, at least you tried to state you point of view in an educated manner, and that makes you a respectable person in my book. I respect you opinion. I just don't agree due to the points I wrote.

[DiegoProgMetal]

Another example: I like the way the mission in Tuchanka ended. I felt Mordin's death was heroic, and powerful. If some people asked for an alternative, where they could cure the genophage and keep Mordin alive, I wouldn't mind at all. Because it would be optional. I would even try the new option.

Modifié par DiegoProgMetal, 01 mai 2012 - 09:58 .

[jdranetz]

I reached the ending. I got over my disappointment. Most people don't have lives they are entirely happy with. The modern RPG creates an alternative life. MMOs have received most of the press about the negative consequences; job loss, suicide. The MMO is more dangerous than an A.I. driven RPG, in that in an MMO co-players drag up into all hours. With a stand alone A.I. RPG, your character is where you last left him/her off. Bioware has to realize that when you make an RPG so immersive, so to speak, you risk the chance that by killing off that character in the end, is like holding a person underwater until they drown in this immersive environment. It's a game, I get it, it has to end some time. This way, Bioware can continue on to new projects, rather than "typecast" themselves as the "Mass Effect" company, like Paramount and Star Trek. You want people to care for the characters, you want people to enjoy being Shepard, don't be surprised when people go through a grieving process when you kill off main characters and ultimately, Commander Shepard. I made my Shepard to look like myself, like millions of other players. A self, minus the potbelly, instead, looking like I did when I graduated college. My Shepard became idealized alter-ego of myself (I hope that wasn't too redundant). Things haven't been great for me, for a lot of years, it was nice to escape into the character, to fool myself into feeling I was actually accomplishing something. This is Psych 101, and the doctors running Bioware, Greg Zeschuk and Ray Muzyka, should know this. Please, I don't mean to be condescending, With so many people becoming Shepard, I'm surprised someone hasn't jumped off a bridge or stepped in front of a train dressed in full N7 armor, not unlike the laughable Conrad Werner, but in a much sadder and heart wrenching version. Anyone recall George C. Scott in "They Might Be Giants"? Man in modern New York, convinced that he was Sherlock Holmes, eventually walks headlong into a subway train, thinking he's intercepting Prof. Moriarty's carriage.

[Amioran]

DiegoProgMetal wrote...
How would this be harmful???

I already explained all of this.

A. If you do a DLC with alternate solutions for the way a DLC is seen it would be accepted as the "real" ending. A DLC would mean to the mind of people that Bioware preferred this way, this, in turn, would be the exact same thing as changing the ending to begin with. EDIT: It's not the same as changing a branch of an outcome within the story as with your example, here we are talking of a completely different thing in scope.

B. A DLC as that would be, anyway, a philosophical change in the ending, a thing many people, for the concept of the same, will not like. It would be not much different than changing the ending to begin with. It is true that is just an option, but sometimes just having the option of a thing you consider not appropriate to begin with can be offensive. For example: you add rape as an option; while it is true that's only an option just the fact that's there would not be good for many people. The same is for this case, the only difference is that for what we are talking about it is more of a philosophical inopportunity.

C. It would be very difficult to make it work. The way the ending is executed requires a certain context. Making a different choice would mean to change completely that context in some way. This, in execution, is very difficult (if not almost impossible) to make in a coherent way. People like to try different outcomes, and those that will do (trying both) will see not correlation at all between the two.

Modifié par Amioran, 01 mai 2012 - 10:08 .

[CAlNlAC]

I agree DiegoProgMetal. I really don't understand how adding more options could possibly alienate anyone. If you like the endings as is its still there. If you don't like the ending you could choose the changed ending if one were to be added.

[JBONE27]

Amioran wrote...

Now that the flaming is a little subsided and maybe we can start debating seriously about things, I decided to post this thread, that explains why Bioware cannot change the ending as it is.

(This post is NOT about "Artistic Integrity", nor it tries to propose another angle from which to see the current ending. It is only about common sense and logic and it goes beyond different opinions, so we can come to a consensus; you are more then welcome to post your replies and discuss what you think about this, and I will try to reply in detail to every concern etc. but please try to be civil and respectful or I will simply ignore you).

Bioware has shipped ME3. The game has been played by many, many people and it will continue to be played (no matter what) by many others to come. Many of these same people have already finished the game and have their opinions on it, whatever it is. Some don't like the ending, some like it, some hate it, some love it. It doesn't matter where the majority stands, there are different opinions on the same, as it's perfectly fine this to happen.

Now while some of you, as individuals, can also not care about the others' opinions and would like the story to end as you prefer, Bioware cannot do the same. You, as individuals, have all the right if you want to complain and either do what in your power to have Bioware listen to your opinion, also if this opinion goes against the one of the others in practice, but Bioware (as a company that has to care for ALL of its fans, and not just some of them) cannot.

As I said, Bioware cannot. That would be like admitting that one part of the audience (those that don't like the ending) have an opinion that matters more than those that like it. It would be like admitting one part of the audience better than the other. Morover this decision will be based on purely arbritary parameters; if there would be reliable and fool-proof statistics (admitting they would ever exists) of what kind of people like/dislike the ending, either if morally questionable, they could base the decision on some kind of basis (as for example if those that don't like the ending are of a certain kind of demographic, or they have an higher IQ or similar idiocies). It would be still completely inappropriate and bad, but as it is now it's even worse, because the decision would be done on completely arbitrary parameters, i.e. they would have to base who is "better" and who is "right" based only on the kind of opinon they have, a purely arbitrary decision, since opinion is purely subjective.

Either if the ending was really "badly written" (questionable, but whatever) this is not, by this point, anymore a plausible parameter (as explained before) on which to base the decision, because also if it is really so, some that now like the ending as it is are tied emotionally to the same, no matter what. Just like if you have a dog from an year and you then discover that it has a genetic disease, a dog breeder cannot propose to change the dog to you just because it has a problem;  you would obviously react not too well to the thing.

Given this, it is obvious that by this point Bioware cannot change the ending for purely objective motives. You, as an individual can also not show tolerance versus others, but Bioware has to consider all the users as having the same importance one another.

EDIT: The thing, then, doesn't work in both ways. Some of you (usually the most determined on disliking the ending) can think that not changing the ending would be anyway frustrating a part of the audience, but the two arguments are completely different. The product shipped in a certain way, the ending is already as it is. In the case of changing an ending now that would mean doing an action that annhiliates a part of the audience, that's completely different than simply having people dislike what you did to begin with. The product of Bioware at the moment of shipping already generated a shift in opinion, what would create an arbitrary decision on that same different opinion would be doing an active action that prefers one point of view to the other, that's completely different from having people like/dislike the product you produced from the start. If you dislike a product it doesn't mean that the authors are actively frustrating your opinion, it just means that they produced something you don't like. A thing completely different is, instead, if the authors do an active action to frustrate what you think.

The only thing they can do to try to please those who don't like the ending is what they are doing, i.e. expand the ending there is already to provide more closure (a thing many are complaining about). Expecting something more would just mean that you pretend something that cannot happen, and not only for technical motivations (as it can be "artistic intergrity" or the fact that the ending has a theme behind that many don't know) but, primarily, just for the sake's and respect of the audience in its totality.

I will add another thing about this: also if this solution can seem the best of both worlds given what I said (and so a move of Bioware has done just for their personal end), this move is, in fact, anyway a gamble because it risks in any case to alienate some users that like the ending exactly as it is (without the full closure). So Bioware it is actually risking this to please a part of the audience, and this is not at all "not listening" because, if you think about it, it's always a risky move from their point of view. They can end up not pleasing nor one nor the other spectrums of the audience. So, please, consider what I say here. You insist they don't care but what they are doing shows the exact contrary.

To finish I want to reply in detail to some of the most used examples of "Changing the work it has been done before so there's nothing wrong with it" to let you see that the things are not exactly as you put them to be:


- Sherlock Holmes, Doyle: I usually laugh inside myself every time people quote this example because they are actually providing proof of the opposite point they are trying to make. Apart the fact that resurrecting a character is not properly the same thing as changing the ending (because the former ending remains the same, you just add to it; it is true that you indirectly change it but it is different than a direct change in the sense that you can decide if to go a route or the other) then Doyle was harshly criticized by critics and fellow artists for the inconsistency and for alienating a part of the audience in doing this. So much, in fact, that even today his name is not considered well by fellow writers just for what he did, and he is quoted many times just for the contrary evidence of what people want to prove it: i.e. of the BAD it happens when you alienate a part of your readers.

- Fallout 3: the ending has NOT changed as people want Bioware to change the ending of ME. It is just a sort of "expansion" as it can be the EC, because the outcomes are exactly the same, you get only to have some more decisions on them. The ending has not changed at all, the same things happens in their context, the difference is only on the execution of the same, nothing more.

- Alan Wake: same thing. While many people called the ending a cliff-hanger it has not changed. The authors just expanded on the same and provided more closure, just this. Nothing different than what's happening with the EC for Bioware.

- Great Expectations, Dickens: he never changed anything at all for the audience. The endings were already decided to be two.

So your entire argument is basically, "Never ever under any circumstances admit you've made a mistake and try to rectify it."

[MrMcDoll]

Why do you keep going on about changes based on feedback from consumers not being the same when applied as patches and dlc vs between games?


"It's different when you do the same for ANOTHER product.
Do you understand the difference? There are totally different parameters invested."

So what you're saying if I'm reading your posts correctly is that they can change the design goals to suit feedback for a sequel, but they shouldn't change anything to do with a current game?

That would be like saying that toyota shouldn't ever make a facelift model of the same chassis coded car. Eg. 1990-1994 SW20 MR-2s vs 1994-1998 SW20 MR-2s. The chassis was the same, they just fixed shortcomings and improved on original designs based on customer demand and prior feedback, they VASTLY improved on the previous model.

This is done in so many other industries too, I don't see how it is different just because Mass effect is a game or something.

If they can release a NEW alternative ending because of the massive fan outcry over the endings then i'm sure people who are happy with the ending can just NOT buy/DL it.

By your logic - that is to say that they'd be modifying a FINISHED product due to a group of customers wishes - then shouldn't they NOT offer any other kind of post sale DLC?
Cos What about those people who don't want ANY DLC? You'd be favouring the fans that wanted extra MP maps, Side quests or what have you, over them!!

[Amioran]

JBONE27 wrote...
So your entire argument is basically, "Never ever under any circumstances admit you've made a mistake and try to rectify it."

Mistake based on what? On what you say? And why that should have more importance than those that think otherwise?

The concept is the same.